Gittin

OR TO THREE PERSONS, WRITE A GET AND GIVE IT TO MY WIFE, THEY SHOULD WRITE AND GIVE IT. IF HE SAID TO THREE PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE,  THEY MAY TELL OTHERS TO WRITE  BECAUSE HE HAS MADE THEM A BETH DIN.  THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR, AND THIS IS THE HALACHAH WHICH R. HANINA A MAN OF ONO  BROUGHT [FROM R. AKIBA IN] PRISON:  'I HAVE IT FROM MY TEACHERS THAT IF A MAN SAYS TO THREE PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, THEY MAY TELL OTHERS TO WRITE IT, BECAUSE HE HAS CONSTITUTED THEM A BETH DIN. R. JOSE SAID: WE SAID TO THE MESSENGER, WE ALSO HAVE IT ON TRADITION FROM OUR TEACHERS THAT EVEN IF HE SAID TO THE GREAT BETH DIN IN JERUSALEM,  GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, 'THEY SHOULD LEARN  AND WRITE AND GIVE IT. IF A MAN SAYS TO TEN PERSONS, WRITE A GET AND DELIVER IT TO MY WIFE, ONE WRITES, AND TWO SIGN AS WITNESSES. [IF HE SAID,] ALL OF YOU WRITE, ONE WRITES AND ALL SIGN. CONSEQUENTLY IF ONE OF THEM DIES, THE GET IS INVALID. GEMARA. R. Jeremiah b. Abba said: An inquiry was sent from the school of Rab  to Samuel: Would our teacher inform us: If a man said to two persons, Write and deliver a Get to my wife, and they told a scribe and he wrote it and they themselves signed it, what is the law?  — He sent back word: She must leave [her second husband],  but the matter requires further study. What did he mean by saying that the matter requires further study? Shall we say it is because only a verbal instruction  was given to them,  and Samuel is in doubt whether a verbal instruction can be passed on to another agent or not? Has not Samuel said in the name of Rabbi that the halachah follows R. Jose who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent?  — No; what Samuel wanted to know was this. [When the husband said to the men], 'write', did he mean their signatures or the Get?  — Cannot this be determined from the Mishnah: IF A MAN SAID TO TWO PERSONS, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, OR IF HE SAID TO THREE, WRITE A GET AND GIVE [IT] TO MY WIFE, THEY SHOULD WRITE AND DELIVER [IT]? — Here too he was in doubt whether 'WRITE' meant their signatures or the actual Get. Surely it is obvious that it must be the Get, from what we read in the later clause: R. JOSE SAID, WE SAID TO THE MESSENGER, WE TOO HAVE IT ON TRADITION FROM OUR TEACHERS THAT EVEN IF HE SAID TO THE GREAT BETH DIN IN JERUSALEM, GIVE A GET TO MY WIFE, THEY SHOULD LEARN AND WRITE AND GIVE TO HER.  Now if you say that the writing of the Get is meant, this creates no difficulty, but if you say it is the writing of the signatures, surely there is no Beth din, the members of which do not know how to sign their names? — Yes; this might happen in a new Beth din. Now if we adopt the opinion that 'write' means 'write your signatures,' but as to the actual Get, it is in order even if written by others [how can this be seeing that] Samuel said in the name of Rabbi that the halachah is in accordance with R. Jose who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent? — We might reply that if we adopt the opinion that 'write' means the signatures, then as far as the writing of the Get is concerned it is as though the husband had given instructions that they should tell [the scribe], and R. Jose admits that [the Get written by the scribe is valid] where he said, Tell [the scribe to write it]. But does R. Jose admit that it is valid where he says to them, Tell [the scribe]? Have we not learnt: 'If the scribe wrote and there was one witness [besides], the Get is valid,'  and R. Jeremiah said in regard to this, Our Version is, If the scribe signs,  and R. Hisda said, Whom does the Mishnah follow? R. Jose, who said that verbal instructions cannot be passed on to another agent.  Now if you assume that R. Jose admits [that the Get is valid] where he says, Tell [the scribe], then a calamity may result, since sometimes he will say to two persons,